- From: Madeleine Rothberg <madeleine_rothberg@wgbh.org>
- Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 01:28:49 +0000
- To: "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, "a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com" <a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com>
Ah, OK. You are saying that generic "is related to" metadata can be used, and that we don't need accessibility-specific versions of those relationships. I guess I would leave this to the search engines participants to weigh in on -- does it improve search to know more specifically that this is an accessibility adaptation of that, or is it fine to know they are related, and then go dig through other metadata to figure out the relationship? To be fair, a "has adaptation" link may not say much about what kind of adaptation is at the end of the link. But "is adaptation" metadata is probably accompanied by some details about what kind of adaptation this is. -Madeleine On 10/3/13 8:39 PM, "Liddy Nevile" <liddy@sunriseresearch.org> wrote: >mmm... > >Madeleine > >I am not saying that we cannot point to other resources/components). I >think that we agreed that there are metadata schema that describe the >relationship between resources and point from one to another. I am >saying that where you want to point or relate resources, that metadata >(already part of schema.org, eg.), should be used. > >I am not sure of what I see as the other part of what you are saying: > >Suppose I have a resource that has a number of redundant components so >that it will be available to a user in a range of forms, and those >bits and pieces have different locations. This is very likely to be >the case where a new alternative is added. In the original resource, >there can easily be a pointer to the alternative and I expect HTML 5 >to cater for that - is this the case, Charles (N)???. > >Otherwise, I assume that if the alternative is covered by metadata it >will be identified as an alternative and used? > >I am not sure I see the problem..... > >Liddy > > >On 04/10/2013, at 12:31 AM, Madeleine Rothberg wrote: > >> (Adding the a11y list, in case there is anyone on that list who is not >> also on public vocabs.) >> >> Liddy, >> Saying that we want to calculate the set of access modes that can >> provide >> full access to a resource does not take away the need to locate the >> supplementary resources that make those sets possible. If the >> transcript >> for an audio file is in a different location than the audio file, >> one way >> to find it would be to have a direct indication in the metadata that >> it is >> the transcript for that audio file over there (and/or vice versa, if >> the >> audio file's metadata author is aware of the transcript). Perhaps >> really >> good search engines can figure that out from other metadata on the two >> resources, but the search will be easier if the explicit link is >> provided. >> People who are purposely creating access features and adding a11y >> metadata >> to them will be motivated to provide that link. >> >> We also imagine cases where a search engine will turn up useful >> equivalents that were never intended to provide an access feature to a >> particular inaccessible resource, but have enough metadata to be >> identified as such. And that's great, but it doesn't take away the >> value >> of encoding those relationships when we do know them. >> >> -Madeleine >> >> On 10/3/13 3:51 AM, "Liddy Nevile" <liddy@sunriseresearch.org> wrote: >> >>> Madeleine, >>> >>> as I understand it - there is not much point in having to specify the >>> is/has adaptation - there will be multiple format combinations >>> available and I think we infer from the choice of a user for captions >>> that they do not need audio (might get it but need text alternative >>> (captions) whenever there is audio). >>> >>> As we have abandoned the idea of 'original version' of a resource >>> (except for where this is identified using appropriate, other >>> metadata >>> based on FRBR or the equivalent), it is not necessary to specify all >>> the alternatives as such - instead I thought we'd agreed to specify >>> the set of accessMedia that would give complete access to the >>> resource. Is that not right ??? >>> >>> Liddy >>> >>> On 03/10/2013, at 1:48 PM, Madeleine Rothberg wrote: >>> >>>> Liddy, >>>> >>>> In what discussion was is/hasAdaptation discredited? I am not aware >>>> of that change in direction. >>>> >>>> Madeleine >>>> >>>> On 2013-10-02, at 10:16 PM, "Liddy Nevile" >>>> <liddy@sunriseresearch.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Richard, >>>>> I think it is no longer necessarily the case that we will be using >>>>> hasAdaptation etc any more - that belongs to a model that I think >>>>> is discredited now... >>>>> >>>>> Liddy >>>>> On 02/10/2013, at 11:24 PM, Wallis,Richard wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It is great to see the progress on the accessibility front. I am >>>>>> supportive of most of the proposals. >>>>>> >>>>>> I would have liked to participate in the call(s) next week but can >>>>>> not, due to travel/speaking commitments. There is an issue that I >>>>>> would have raised if I could attend. >>>>>> >>>>>> The term adaption has specific meaning in the accessibility >>>>>> context where the properties hasAdaption & isAdaptionOf make >>>>>> sense. However in the academic & bibliographic domains adaption >>>>>> has an established and different meaning. Those property names >>>>>> would also make sense to a librarian, but for different reasons. >>>>>> >>>>>> On the one hand we are describing, as an adaption, something with >>>>>> essentially the same content that has been adapted for >>>>>> accessibility reasons; on the other we are describing something >>>>>> which has had its content adapted to provide a different >>>>>> [literary] view. >>>>>> >>>>>> Librarians 'know' what they mean by adaption, as will >>>>>> accessibility oriented professionals will know what is meant in >>>>>> their domain. However going for an undifferentiated property >>>>>> name, such as hasAdaption, will lead to ambiguity and confusion >>>>>> further down the line with accessibility/bibliographic oriented >>>>>> softwares having no certainty as to what type of adaption is being >>>>>> referenced. >>>>>> >>>>>> Checking out the wikipedia disambiguation page for adaption, >>>>>> highlights that this could be a problem for more that just two >>>>>> communities. >>>>>> >>>>>> In an earlier accessibility threads, Karen Coyle suggested the use >>>>>> of 'hasAdaptionForAccess' & 'isAdaptionForAccessOf' I have a >>>>>> preference for the slightly shorter 'hasAccessibilityAdaption' & >>>>>> 'isAccessibilityAdaptionOf'. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course this then raises the question of what property names we >>>>>> would use for the bibliographic domain - something to go on the >>>>>> agenda of the next SchemaBibEx Group meeting methinks! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ~Richard >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> >
Received on Friday, 4 October 2013 01:29:22 UTC